Pin #: 383
I. Introduction
The interpretation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States constitution as originally
viewed by our original framers, has evolved into an intricate framework that fits our current societal
changes; taking into consideration factors that may have never crossed the minds of our original founders.
This paper will discuss the question presented: “Whether the Eighth Amendment‟s ban on cruel and
unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as
punishment for the juvenile‟s commission of a non-homicide.”1 The focal point of this paper will discuss
the various interpretations of Courts regarding the Eighth Amendment and how it applies to sentencing
non-homicide juvenile offenders.
II. Background
The primary issue raised in this case is the application of the Eighth Amendment and how it
should apply, but has not, to non-homicide juvenile offender. Petitioners take the stance that sentencing of
juvenile offenders should take into consideration the age and characteristics of the offender, as juveniles
are more capable of reform than are adults. Petitioners further assert the need to have a balance between
the offense committed by a juvenile, and the punishment that should be imposed. Case law has shown the
gross disproportionality amongst sentences for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, with that
of adult offenders who committed homicides. Lastly, petitioners raise the issue of the broad degree of
discretion given to both judges at the trial court level and state prosecutors. Petitioners feel the need to
have a system of checks and balances in effect in order to preserve justice and equal treatment for juvenile
offenders who commit non-homicide offenses, and are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Graham v. State of Florida, is a significant case because it hones in on the true interpretation of
the Eighth Amendment which states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
1
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Graham v. State of Florida, 2009 WL 2954163 (U.S.). (No. 08-7412).
1
Pin #: 383
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”2 This case is significant because it takes into consideration
an entire category of offenders-juveniles who committed non-homicide offenses, and persuades the court
to view this category of offenders as who they are: juveniles under the age of 18 years old, highly capable
of reform and rehabilitation.
Graham further sets forth a guideline for future cases that will assist the judge, by allowing the
trial court to have a guide that it must follow in order to impose severe sentences, such as life without the
possibility of parole upon non-homicide juvenile offenders. Which in this case, is unconstitutional and is
a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment. Lastly, the significance that Graham brings to the forefront
for sentencing of non-homicide juvenile offenders is a chance-a chance for the juveniles to prove
themselves in whatever situation the judge may seem fit. Graham offers future juvenile offenders the
opportunity to have their voices heard, and will not be tossed away by a judge‟s discretion. Graham
allows juveniles to take responsibility for their actions, but in a manner that is both fair and proportionate
to the crimes the juvenile offender committed.
III. Facts
Florida‟s legislature, in an effort to combat the rising crime rate, held two special sessions to
address the issue of increase crime rates by juvenile offenders.3 Governor Lawton Chiles, convened the
meetings based upon the facts that, “it is widely recognized that juvenile crime has become the greatest
single problem in America today.”4 What developed from these legislative sessions was the
implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act.5 The Juvenile Justice Act, allowed for juvenile offenders to be
2
Graham v. State of Florida, Slip op. at 57.
See Florida’s Governor Calls Session on Crime, N.Y. Times, Oct. 12, 1993, at A18.
4
See 1994 Fla. Laws xviii (statement of Governor Lawton Chiles).
5
See 1994 Fla. Laws, Ch. 94-209
3
2
Pin #: 383
transferred to adult criminal courts, it also gave judges greater discretion to either place juvenile sanctions
or adult sanctions on the juvenile offender.6
The Juvenile Justice Act had two primary purposes. First, the Act was placed in affect to protect
society and the community by demonstrating “control, disciple, punishment, and treatment of juvenile
offenders.”7 Fla. Stat. §39.002(1)(c) (1995). Secondly, the Act allowed the courts to prosecute both older
juvenile offenders, as well as those who commit violent crimes as adults.8 Fla. Stat. §39.0587(1)(e)
(1995).
From 1980 to 2000, Florida‟s sentencing and punishment policies focused on deterring crime, in
manner that altered previous: sentencing practices, gaintime policies and early prison release.9
Additionally, violent criminal laws and other ordinances were enacted, that in turn would increase
mandatory punishments and enhance sentences for repeat offenders.10 Florida‟s attempts to decrease
crime through its statutory changes, proved successful. For example, „violent crime rates per 100,000
persons decreased from 1200.3 in 1992 to 670.3 in 2008.‟11 Although, with the decline of violent crimes
committed by juvenile offenders during these periods; violent crimes by juvenile offenders continued.
Petitioner Terrance Graham is a product of an unhealthy home. Both of Graham‟s parents were
addicted to drugs, and their use persisted throughout Graham‟s life.12 At an early age, Graham was on a
slippery slope; Graham was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in elementary school,
6
Id.
Fla. Stat. §39.002(1)(c) (1995).
8
Fla. Stat. §39.0587(1)(e) (1995).
9
See William H. Burgess, Florida Sentencing 235-423 (2008-09).
10
Historical Summary of Sentencing & Punishment in Fla., Dep’t of Corrs., available at
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/history.
11
See Violent Crime Rate at a Glance (1989-08), Fla. Dep’t Law Enforcement, available at
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime.aspx.
12
Supra note 2, at 3.
7
3
Pin #: 383
partook in alcohol and marijuana by the age of thirteen.13 Graham was sixteen years old when he robbed a
barbeque restaurant.14
At the courts discretion, Graham was charged as an adult for armed burglary with an assault or
battery in violation of Florida Statutes sections 810.02(2)(a) and 810.02(2)(b). He was also charged for
attempted armed robbery in violation of Florida Statutes sections 812.13(2)(b) and 777.04(1). The first
charge against Graham is punishable by up to life in prison; and his second charge was punishable by up
to fifteen years in prison.15
The trial judge withheld adjudication and punished Graham by giving him three years probation,
12 months in a county detention facility and 100 hours of community service. 16 During trial Graham
acknowledged that he was relinquishing his right to have the court consider him as a juvenile, and would
be sentenced as an adult, as it pertains to current and future violations of Florida‟s laws.17
In 2004, Graham was released from the county jail. In less than a month shy of his eighteenth
birthday, Graham and his fellow accomplices committed an armed robbery at the home of Carlos
Rodriguez Lopez.18 During the course of the robbery, Meigo Bailey was shot. Graham and the other
accomplice rushed Bailey to the hospital. Graham fled from the hospital, while leading a police officer in
a car chase.19 He eventually lost control of the vehicle, and crashed into a telephone pole. He then
13
See id.
14
Supra note 1, at 8.
15
See id.
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
See supra note, 1 at 8.
16
4
Pin #: 383
proceeded to flee on foot. Once captured by the officer, crime scene detectives found 3 guns in the carone of them belonging to Graham.20
This incident was a violation of Graham‟s probation. Graham faced 66.75 months to life for
armed burglary with assault or battery, and 66.75 months to fifteen years for the second count of
attempted armed robbery.21 In 2006, sentencing resumed and the court stated, “…This is an escalating
pattern of criminal conduct on your part and that we can‟t help you any further. We can‟t do anything to
deter you…It is apparent to the Court that you have decided that this is the way you are going to live your
life and that the only thing I can do now is try to protect the community from your actions..” 22 The trial
judge sentenced Graham to life in prison for the armed burglary count, and 15 years in prison for
attempted armed robbery.
In June 2006, Graham appealed his sentence.23 Graham had three arguments: 1) that his sentence
violated the prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, and 2) that his life sentence was grossly
disproportionate to his offense and 3) that his sentence violated the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR).24 To no avail, the First District Court of Appeal rejected all three of Graham‟s
arguments and upheld the trial court‟s ruling.25
b. Parties position
a. Petitioner
Arguments asserted by petitioners counsel focus on: 1) age of juvenile offender; 2) Eighth
Amendment constitutional protections set in place for juveniles and 3) the disassociation between the
20
See id.
Id. at 9.
22
Id. at 10.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 11.
25
Id.
21
5
Pin #: 383
offense, and the life without parole sentence. Petitioners defense asserts that, it is both „cruel and
unusual‟ to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole, in that, such a sentence would never
allow the juvenile offender who committed a non-homicide offense the opportunity to reform and return
to society a changed individual.26 Petitioners arguments are founded on the notions that juveniles are less
culpable, but more capable to reform then adults.27
It is further presumed that a juvenile offender‟s age is a critical element for the determination of
whether the offender‟s sentence corresponds with structure of the Eighth Amendment.28 Sullivan v.
Florida No. 08-7621 Resp. Br. 21, stated, “at a certain point an offender‟s young age could play into the
gross disproportionality analysis for prison sentences in ways it does not for adult offenders.”29 Defense
further claim that the respondents have yet to state a rational justification for the treatment of juvenile
offenders as adults.30
Petitioners assert that the constitution is applied differently to juveniles, as a class, and differs
from the way it is applied to adults.31 Petitioners rely strongly on Roper v. Simmons, which stated that‟s
juvenile who committed their offenses under the age of 18 were “not fully formed human beings, and,
consequently, les morally culpable for their actions and more capable of reform than adults.‟32 They view
the Eighth Amendment as a shield that protects juvenile offenders from severe punishments, such as,
sentencing juveniles as adults.33 It is argued that Roper established that age 18 represents the difference
between youth and adulthood, as applied to the Eighth Amendment.34
26
Id. at 4.
Id. at 3.
28
Reply Brief Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Graham v. State of Florida, 2009 WL 3340114 (U.S.). (No. 08-7412).
29
Id. at 4.
30
Id. at 4.
31
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
32
Id at 569-570.
33
Supra note 23, at 4.
34
See id. at 5.
27
6
Pin #: 383
Petitioners argue age should also be a determining factor when assessing the constitutionality of
life without parole sentences; reason being, life without parole sentences mirror capital sentences.35 From
this standpoint, petitioner‟s view both the death penalty and life without parole as declaring that these
particular offenders are “perpetually unfit to return to society and forever incapable of reform…because it
conclusively determines that an offender is irreparable and must die in prison.”36
What the petitioner‟s highlight about the importance and application of the Eighth Amendment is
that, the Eighth Amendment is “not concerned with the forum in which the offender is prosecuted, but
rather the punishment imposed.”
37
For instance, Florida has a statute that allows a juvenile offender,
regardless of age, to be dealt with as an adult and may be punished by death or life imprisonment.38 In the
case at hand, Florida law allows prosecutors full discretion as to how they will classify the juvenile, either
as a juvenile or as an adult.39 Likewise, this same discretion given to prosecutors in Florida also is given
to trial judges at sentencing.40
Petitioners assert that Florida does not have checks and balances system in place to protect
juvenile offenders who are convicted as adults.41 Petitioners argue that Graham‟s sentencing is similar to
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), in that sentencing was based solely upon the discretion of the
judge.42 Furthermore, the main stance that petitioner takes, attempts to persuade the Court to view that a
life-without-parole sentence, for a juvenile offender under 18 years of age, is a violation of the Eighth
Amendment if it is administered for a non-homicide offense.43
35
Id.
Id.
37
State v. Pittman, 647 S.E.2d 144, 163 (S.C. 2007).
38
Fla. Stat. §985.56(1) (2009).
39
Supra note 23, at 6.
40
Id. at 6.
41
Id. at 6.
42
Solemn v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)
43
Supra note, 23 at 7.
36
7
Pin #: 383
b. Respondent
Respondents take the position that the Eighth Amendment does not take into consideration a
“categorical” ban on life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders who committed a non-homicide
offense.44 Respondents believe that the Eighth Amendment establishes that any offender who commits a
violent crime, here being the armed robbery by petitioner, a sentence of life without parole is not grossly
disproportionate.45 Respondents argue that society has thoroughly considered the mentality of juveniles in
the implementation of laws and traditions of our nation.46 Furthermore, respondents assert that life
sentences without the possibility of parole may be imposed for numerous types of crimes.47
IV. Court Decisions
As mentioned previously, the court‟s reasoning in Roper established that juveniles are not fully
matured humans; therefore they are likely to be capable of reform compared to adults.48 Roper further
stated that constitutional protections apply differently to juveniles and adults.49 More importantly, in
Roper, this Court upheld that „it is impossible to discern ex ante which juveniles will become law-abiding
citizens and which will be a threat to society for the rest of their lives.‟ 50 Under the Eighth Amendments
determination of whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense, not only the nature of the
offense is considered, but also the offender‟s characteristics and ability to reform.51 A tantamount case to
Roper, is Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005, which the court held “…threshold consideration
44
Supra note 1, at 11.
Id. at 11.
46
Supra note, 23 at 12.
47
Id. at 16.
48
Supra note, 28 at 4.
49
Id at 4.
50
Id at 4.
51
Id at 5.
45
8
Pin #: 383
involves simply a comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed to determine whether an
inference of gross disproportionality exists.”52
In Solem, the Court held that those in legislature have a broad range of authority in determining
standards of punishment for crimes; and for this reason the Court found no problem with invalidating
certain punishments.53 Solem, also provided an analysis of three objective factors to assess gross
disproportionality which includes: “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the
sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for
commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”54
The Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008), held the Eighth Amendment would
allow a juvenile offender who committed a homicide to be sentenced to life without parole. 55 Kennedy
also provides a categorical response, in that society‟s interest in seeking punishment for an offender who
commits a homicide, differs from its interest for punishment of a non-homicide offense.56 More
importantly, the Court in Kennedy held „the death penalty for crimes against individuals must be reserved
for crimes that take the life of the victim.‟57
b. Key cases
As previously mentioned, key cases the Court relied upon are also Roper, Kennedy, Solem and
Hamelin.58 The Court relied on these cases because they illustrated the sentencing practices were cruel
and unusual, based upon the „inadequacy of penological theory‟ to rationalize life without parole for
52
Brief of Respondent Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Graham v. State of Florida, 2009 WL 2954163 (U.S.). (No. 087412).
53
Solem, 463 U.S. at 290.
Id. at 292.
55
Supra note, 23 at 8.
56
Id. at 8.
57
Kennedy, 128 S.Ct. at 2665 Id at 9.
58
Slip opinion Graham v. State of Florida, 130 S. Ct. 357, 3 (2009).
54
9
Pin #: 383
juvenile offenders who committed non-homicide offenses, who also have a limited culpability and are
capable of reform.59 The Court also relied on these cases to assert that non-homicide juvenile offenders
are „categorically‟ less deserving of a sentence of life without parole, than are murders.60 Lastly, the Court
relied on these cases to show that both age and nature of the offense are relevant factors in the sentencing
of a juvenile offender as an adult. The Court stated that a juvenile offender will face a twice diminished
moral culpability, than an adult murder since life without parole is considered, “the second most severe
penalty permitted by law.”61
In the Courts reliance on the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment‟s „nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted,‟ viewed the determination of what is to be considered as cruel and unusual, courts
must surpass historical interpretations and look to „the evolving standards of decency that mark the
progress of a maturing society.‟62 The Court further noted that the standards may remain as is; however,
the applicability must conform to the changes of society.63
c. Concurring opinions
Chief Justice Robert‟s concurred with the opinion of the Court, and also posited his
understanding of the question presented. Justice Roberts asserts that the applicability of court precedents
should be analyzed under two prongs: 1) noncapital sentencing should be reviewed by using “narrow
proportionality”; and 2) the conclusion of the court in Roper.64 From Chief Justice Roberts standpoint,
59
Id at 3.
Id at 3.
61
Slip opinion Harmelin, 501 U.S. 957, 1001.
62
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958).
63
Kennedy, (slip op., at 12) (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 382 (1972).
64
Slip note at 43
60
10
Pin #: 383
these cases are set in place for future courts to refer to when sentencing noncapital offenders, to take into
consideration both the defendant and the crime at hand.65
From Graham‟s situation, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledges that Graham was a minor at the
time the offenses were committed, and was given an immensely severe punishment that is
disproportionate in all its ways-and is unconstitutional.66 Most importantly, Chief Justice Roberts
explained that the Eighth Amendment “„does not require strict proportionality between crime and
sentence‟” ; rather, “„ it forbids only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the
crime.‟”67 In collaboration with the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Roberts took a slightly different
approach in interpreting Roper, here he states Roper is founded on the precept that it is a possibility that
some juvenile offenders will face life without parole sentences.68
V. Analysis
a. Key points
Graham‟s case has reached all tiers of the court system, having doing so has allowed readers to
gain a well-rounded understanding of each parties position, including the final judgment by the Supreme
Court. In concurring with the final decision of the Supreme Court, I agree with the following statements:
1) that a juvenile offenders age and background, as well as, the offense committed should be taken into
consideration prior to sentencing at the trial court level; 2) there should be a checks and balances system
in effect that limits the amount of discretion given to judges and prosecutors regarding juvenile
classification and sentencing practices; and 3) sentencing a non-homicide juvenile offender to life without
parole is the same as sentencing the juvenile to the death penalty.
65
Supra note, 58 at 59.
Id. at 45.
67
Harmelin, supra, at 1001
68
Roper, at 572.
66
11
Pin #: 383
b. Historical Approach
Case law has provided the historical approach taken by the Supreme Court in considering it final
judgment. As previously mentioned, Tropp (1958), stated the need for courts to evolve as society
continues to evolve and mature.69 The Supreme Court concluded in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S.
349, 367 (1910), that the Eighth Amendment embraced the concept of “proportionality” by declaring
“…punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.”70 The historical
approach to the issue was also reinforced by the holdings of both Solem, and Hamelin. More recently, the
Courts decision in Roper has played a vital role for emphasizing that juvenile offenders are capable of
reform, and that their age must be taken in account when comparing them to adult offenders. The court
also notes the evolving definition of „cruel and unusual‟ punishment. Hamelin defined „cruel and unusual‟
to mean tortuous methods of punishment.71 Today, the interpretation of „cruel and unusual‟ punishment
applies to any punishment “the Court deems “grossly disproportionate” to the crime committed.”72
c. Possible future applications
Possible applications for the Court‟s reasoning will likely make a petitioner similar to Graham,
who committed a non-homicide offense will be given an opportunity to have his/her entire character, age
and background taken into account prior to any sentencing. Also, possible applications from the reasoning
of the Court will assist the trial courts, to focus on both the crime committed by the juvenile offender, and
the type of punishment that would be proportional to the offense. These applications allow for a system of
checks and balances, in that the discretion of a prosecutor to decide whether or not to prosecute a juvenile
as an adult, and the trial court judge to have total discretion as to how he/she wishes to impose sentences
on juveniles.
69
Supra note, 58 at 11.
Weems, 217 U.S. 349 (slip op. at 12).
71
Supra note, 58. at 57.
72
Id.
70
12
Pin #: 383
The cruel and unusual punishment that is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment will prohibit
judges from condemning juvenile offenders for non-homicide offenses to life without parole. A sentence
of life without parole speaks that this particular offender is should not be a part of society-for an indefinite
period of time. The Supreme Court‟s reasoning will allow future juvenile offenders the opportunity to
possibly obtain parole for non-homicide offenses, and possibly have the ability to demonstrate that the
juvenile offender has matured and is fit for society. It is further possible that the offense the juvenile
committed is not a true representation of who and what that offender resembles.73
VI. Conclusion
What Graham stands for is that an equal opportunity is given to non-homicide juvenile offenders
regarding sentencing. Sentencing a juvenile to life without parole is and should be considered cruel and
unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Giving such broad discretion to the trial court judges
and prosecutors taints the judicial system, which is founded on justice and equality. The sentence that was
given to Graham at the trial court level, was objective, and based upon the total discretion of the judge. In
this nation, no one person should be allowed to possess that amount of power, to send a juvenile, who did
not commit any form of homicide to life imprisonment without parole. This disregard for human life
should not be allowed.
Judges, such as the one that sentenced Graham, need a set of guidelines, like those given by
Roper, that give them a system of checks and balances. In all fairness, if a juvenile offender commits a
non-homicide crime; his punishment should be proportionate to the crime he/she committed.
Furthermore, for the future of our nations juvenile offenders, judges at the trial level should take into total
consideration the age of the offender, and should not base what that juvenile offender is capable of
becoming solely upon his/her current offenses. The legislature and those in power of imposing sentences
73
Supra note 58 at 33.
13
Pin #: 383
should consider the possibilities that the juvenile offenders who stand in their courts at one moment, may
mature and become rehabilitated. Why throw away the key on a non-homicide juvenile offender? Instead,
offer them another avenue, another solution to the problem they are in. These types of seg-ways will
allow the juvenile offender to serve his/her time that is proportionate with the offense committed; as well
as learn from their mistakes. The original framers of our constitution had a vision of how our society
should be governed, today, cases like Graham allow us to be thankful for room to interpret the Eighth
Amendment so that it fits our evolution as a society.
14